Group 2 Question 10: New historical research suggests to some...

Official Explanation:

NOTE: There was a mistake in the original question. The first sentence, not the second, should have been in boldface. We've fixed it in the original question, and down below in the explanation. We apologize for the confusion!

New historical research suggests to some historians that most early European settlers in the Americas underestimated the amount of time it would take them to learn to properly farm the land. This conclusion is based on written accounts taken from more than a dozen sites in what is now Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Other historians believe that since these accounts are taken only from a limited number of official records of property that had to be sold in order for the owners to avoid bankruptcy, they give a false impression of the status of farmers in those regions.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is evidence for an unstated conclusion ; the second is evidence that is used to weaken the conclusion suggested by the first piece of evidence.
(B) The first is background information; the second is evidence that provides a link from the background information to a possible conclusion.
(C) The first is a conclusion; the second provides an interpretation that conflicts with an assumption made by that conclusion.
(D) The first is evidence that supports a stated conclusion; the second is evidence that does not directly address the strength of that conclusion.
(E) The first is a conclusion; the second is evidence that is used to weaken the certainty of that conclusion.

Question Type: Bold Face CR
Boil It Down: Historical records say that European settlers were terrible farmers because they underestimated how long it would take to learn how to farm in the Americas. However, some historians say European settlers lied in these documents to more easily declare bankruptcy on their land.
Goal: Figure out the purpose of each bold faced section.

Analysis:

This question asks you to identify what parts the two boldfaced portions play in the passage.

The passage contains two conclusions, which we’ll call Conclusion A and B. They each have their own premise.

Premise A: Written accounts taken from more than a dozen sites contain information about early farm failures.

Conclusion A: Most early European settlers in the Americas underestimated the amount of time it would take them to learn to properly farm the land.

Premise B: The accounts of farm failures are taken from official records of property that had to be sold in order for the owners to avoid bankruptcy.

Conclusion B: The accounts give a false impression; one cannot conclude that most early European settlers in the Americas underestimated the amount of time it would take them to learn to properly farm the land, since the accounts are only of a limited number of farm failures.

The above analysis should make it clear that choice E is correct. The first portion is a conclusion. (The next few words – “This conclusion” make this crystal clear.”) The second portion supports a different conclusion that opposes the first one. It states that “one cannot conclude that most “. . . settlers . . . underestimated the amount of time . . .”


Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Hi Empowergmatverbal,
I am still confused between C and D options. Could u please explain?

Posted from my mobile device

Choices A, D and B can be eliminated right away for using "evidence" and "background information". The first BF is clearly a conclusion because it starts off saying - New historical research suggests(or concludes or infers) that so and so is the case. Moreover the next sentence starts with "This conclusion", can't really ask for a bigger give away that BF1 is a conclusion.

Comes down to C and E.
C says that BF2 is an interpretation; it is not an interpretation that there are a limited number of official records, but fact. C is eliminated.
E says that BF2 weakens the conclusion made in BF1 with another bit of evidence and this is certainly what BF2 is doing, it is weakening the initial conclusion. So E it is.

Thanks for your question NdGoyal!

(C) The first is a conclusion; the second provides an interpretation that conflicts with an assumption made by that conclusion.

Okay, so the first part of this is correct: the first boldface section is a conclusion. However, the second boldface section is NOT an interpretation - it's actually providing evidence to weaken the conclusion.

(D) The first is evidence that supports a stated conclusion; the second is evidence that does not directly address the strength of that conclusion.

The first part of this is wrong: it's not evidence to support a conclusion - it IS the conclusion. The second part also is wrong: saying that evidence "does not directly address the strength of that conclusion" is NOT the same thing as saying that the evidence WEAKENS the conclusion.

(E) The first is a conclusion; the second is evidence that is used to weaken the certainty of that conclusion.

This is correct because it gets both parts and their purposes labeled correctly.

We hope this helps!

I am still not able to understand why option E is the correct answer. BF1 can't be the conclusion as conclusion should logically be inferred from the argument.
Option A looks more subtle to me.

Please share your insight.

GMATNinja Can you please explain why A is not the correct answer?